letter to las cruces school board members 1-26-2016

8/15/2019 Letter to Las Cruces School Board Members 1-26-2016

1/3

S T A T E O F N E W M E X IC O

P UB L I C E DUC A T I O N DE P A RT M E N T

300 D O N G A S P A R

SANTA FE, NEW MEX ICO 87501-2786

Telephone (505) 827-5800

www.ped.state.nm.us

H NN SK NDER

US N M RTINEZ

SECRET RY OF EDUC TION

OVERNOR

January 26, 20 16

M s. Maria A. Flores

President

Las Cruces Public School Board

4210 Senna Drive

Las Cruces , NM 88011

Maflores54@gmail .com

M r. Chuck Davis

Vice President

Las Cruces Public School Bo ard

1909 Burke Road

L as Cr u c es , NM 88007

[email protected]

M s. Barbara Hall

Secretary

Las Cruces Public School B oard

16 Lebanon Arc

Las Cruces, NM 88 001

[email protected]

M r. Maury Castro

Member

Las Cruces Public School B oard

6070 F lores Ct.

L as Cr u c es , NM 88007

[email protected]

Mr. Ed Frank

Member

Las Cruces Public School Bo ard

4111 B el la Sierra Ct.

Las Cruces , NM 88011

edfrankschoolboarddistrict5Qgmail.com

Dear School Board M embers,

For almost a year, since this board of the Las C ruces Public Schools has been seated, a number of comp laints

have been received by my off ice regarding the beh avior of the bo ard both individually and collectively. These

complaints have included al legations of rol l ing quorums and o ther op en meeting violations, overstepping of the

boards authority regarding the day-to-day operations of the district, and the unwillingness of the bo ard to follow

state law regarding the teache r evaluation system, the latter resulting in a directive from my office requiring the

district to provide inform ation nece ssary to effectively comp lete teacher evaluations.

In recent weeks a number of similar complaints have been received that indicate the board continues to operate

in a man ner th at is no t consistent with statute and o utside of its charg e. I have asked staff to look into all of the

allegations and h ave determined that a num ber of actions taken by the board are n ot within the scope of its

responsibilities and could be in violation of the Open Meetings Act. These include but are not limited to:

A directive made by the board president to the superintenden t put it in a drawer — we don 't necessarily

have to act regarding my directive to report teacher absences as contained in the NM TE AC H Pro tocol

in direct defiance to the regulations and N M AC .


2/3

Asking the Superintendent to leave an open meeting being held at a board retreat in order for the board

to meet with principals. Minutes from the meeting quote the board president noting the board

discussed the matter amongst themselves and decided the superintendent would not be part of the

discussion . The minutes do not reflect this discussion, indicating the discussion had been conducted

outside of the meeting suggesting either a rolling quorum a polling of the board or an illegal meeting.

At the same meeting the board president stated that the board would like board representative at all

principal meeting for the purpose of evaluating the superintendent . Again, there is no record of this

discussion or a recorded vote indicating the discussion had been conducted outside of the meeting

suggesting either a rolling quorum, a polling of the board, or an illegal meeting. In addition, I must

again remind the board that the supervision of principals is the sole responsibilities of the superintendent

and the presence of board members at all principal meetings as a matter of course undermines the

authority of the superintendent.

The board president ordering the district business manager to enter into a contract with outside counsel

to conduct an investigation of a district program and the superintendent without the approval of the

board. It is important to note that the supervision of all district employees falls solely to the

superintendent and board members should go through the superintendent if they require any action or

service. It is important to remember that the president serves at the pleasure of the board and is not

empowered to make unilateral decisions regarding decisions reserved for the board.

The board directing to the superintendent how the LEAP/Jump program would be managed including

that the supervisor of the principal would be responsible for the program essentially results in the

principal being removed, a directive that is outside of the purview of the board. Further, the

requirement that the district would retain and assign an administrator not employed by the district to

evaluate the principal and program is outside of the authority of the board and amounts to an illegal

directive to the superintendent. The board also put the superintendent on notice that failure to follow

this directive would be considered insubordination. All of these actions are an over reach of the boards

authority, responsibility for all personnel actions including hiring, firing, and assigning district staff falls

solely with the superintendent.

The board noting at its May 5, 2015 meeting regarding the LEAP program, we felt like we had to act

and that the Board will take action to defund the program both of these are indicative of a rolling

quorum, a polling of the board, or an illegal meeting. At the same meeting, one of the board members

noted that all of us have met with staff' this further indicates a rolling quorum, a polling of the board,

or an illegal meeting without administration present. This is significant overreach by the board.

A discussion by the board vice-president and several members at a recent board meeting of a meeting

between these board members and the editorial board of the local newspaper, in direct conflict with the

Open Meetings Act.

A resolution of the board admitting to Open Meetings Act violations and correcting the record of

actions and determinations that appear to never have occurred, and then at a later date, the board revised

the resolution to correct its own record of actions and determinations. It appears that the board cannot

keep track of their own violations of the Open Meetings Act and needed to change the record to align

with what should have occu rred if proper actions had taken place.

The board allowing IT staff members who filed a grievance against the district and who were not

satisfied with the outcome to enter an executive session of the board to air their grievance. In this

executive session, the employees were permitted to ask the superintendent questions regarding the

grievance, in direct violation of the superintendent's statutory role to hire and fire all employees of the

district. This is a violation of the grievance policy of the school district and not an item subject to

executive session in violation of the Open Meetings Act. Further it has been brought to my attention

that the board's attorney advised the board against this action the board moved forward with the meeting

disregarding the advice.

The board president removing the district's long-time attorney and engaging a new attorney without the

approval of the board. The board president notified the superintendent that the current attorney would

no longer be representing the board. The board president also notified the superintendent that she would


3/3

notify both attorne ys. This action is in violation of the roles and resp onsibility of the superintenden t as

the Chief Executive Officer of the district and an overstep of the board. When notified by another board

member that this action required board app roval, the p resident noted that it would be on the agenda for

the next mee ting. Further, the bo ard president escorted the new attorney to the cen tral office and a

limited number of schools to introduce the attorney to staff. At one point a number of board members

showed up to m eet the attorney at on e location, i t is unclear how so m any of the bo ard members knew

how to b e in on e place at one time unless a rolling quorum, a polling of the bo ard, or an illegal meeting

had taken place. If fact, one board mem ber at a t ime was required to be out of the room at a t ime to

prevent a quorum of the board meeting. Since all were at the same place for the same reason, I believe

that a quorum of the board was present and that a violation of the O pen M eetings Act took p lace.

As you can see, the number of concerns that can be confirmed is significant and point to a consistent and

deliberate intent to circumvent the roles and responsibilities of the school board under the laws of the State of

New M exico. The numb er of violations of the O pen M eetings Act is an affront to the transparency required of

school boards to ensure public confidence in the oversight and conduct of the L as Cruces Public Schools. These

violations of the Open Meetings Act will be reported to the Attorney General s office for investigation and

action.

Secon dly, it is clear that members of the schoo l board either do not understand or cho ose to ignore their roles

and responsibilities in providing oversight of the school district. School board members are charged with

certain responsibilities, none of which relate to day-to-day operations, the hiring and firing of staff,

administrative oversight, or p ersonnel actions. Th e bo ard has very specif ic responsibi l ities and h as chosen to

over-step its boundaries with regard to these respo nsibilit ies. As a result , I am directing the sch ool bo ard to

undergo training specific to its roles and responsibilities as well as training specific to the Open Meetings Act.

Th is training must be comp leted within 6 0 days with documen tation of attendance provided by the N ew M exico

School Boards Association. Refresher training will be scheduled at least twice annually until such time the

board demon strates that it can op erate within the scope of its charge.

I expect the b oard takes seriously these requirem ents, failure to meet these requirem ents could result in m y

taking action to suspen d the board un til such time as these issues are addressed and I am con fident that the Las

Cruces P ublic Schoo ls are operating under the p rovisions of law that govern sch ool board respon sibilities.

Regar

Hanna S kandera

Secretary of Education

cc: The Ho norable Susana M artinez , G overnor of New M exico

Hector Balderas, Attorney Gen eral , New M exico

Stan Rounds, Superintendent, Las Cruces Public Schools

Joe G uil len, Exe cutive Director, New M exico Schoo l Boards Association

letter to las cruces school board members 1-26-2016

Documents